Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher

[Other_Eric]

I think that the Church ought to entrust the teaching of the young and impressionable to people she can trust to imitate Christ. I think the audience for this teaching ought to be restricted to those for whom that knowledge will do the most good. This is common sense. Neither of these goals can be accomplished if we populate the school with sinners; especially sinners who flagrantly violate the moral law.

This isn’t about casting stones or rendering judgment nor is this a failure to forgive. It’s about the prudent administration of a Catholic education establishment.

 

[surfinpure]

But as far as ‘being fired for being a sinner’ … not so much. There are plenty of other sins out there which do not announce themselves with morning sickness and bulging bellies. Many more sins can be hidden from most people (how many contracepting co-workers did she have? Would anyone know, short of catching them in the act of purchase?).

You know, I’ve been thinking about this, too. And I think that, while not every sin is one you wear on your sleeve, there are other instances in which a Catholic school might need to fire (or at least sternly reprimand) an employee, such as…

-Having inappropriate magazines on school property
-Keeping an immodest picture on one’s desk or computer desktop
-Viewing inappropriate content on a school computer
-Using foul language
-Listening to music with explicit lyrics while driving onto the school grounds, so that the children could hear
-Wearing immodest clothing
-Talking freely about sinful behavior with co-workers
-Coming to school under the influence of alchohol or drugs

… and a host of other things. So it appears that, in truth, being pregnant and unmarried is only one of many actions that would be scandalous to school children and require dismissal.

Also, I think it is important to recognize that historically the woman has always taken the brunt of the fall for an illicit affair, at least socially. (We know, of course, that in God’s eyes the man is every bit as responsible – if not moreso, since man is supposed to protect woman.) We cry out at the unfairness of it, but the truth is, that when we sin, we remove ourselves from any standard of rightness or fairness. We make ourselves subject to mere nature and to the devil, and neither of those is fair. The woman is the weaker vessel physically, however she is stronger in several intangible ways. But if she makes herself weak morally, what protection does she have?

I suppose what I’m getting at is that the mere fact that the woman is more vulnerable and more exposed by the act of sexual immorality is all the more reason that she needs to be guarded – both by herself, the Church, and society! She cannot afford to fall in this way, and if she does, she cannot make any claim to fairness and justice from the World. The World has never been just. Life has never been just. Only God is just. Therefore if she wants justice, she must live justly. And we women must all protect ourselves from the harshness of this sin!

 

[Steeltemplar]

In this case, it seems like she is unrepentant. If that is the case, then her firing is justified.

However, if she had repented of her sin and resolved anew to live by the Church’s teaching, then I do not see why she would need to lose her job.

Some would characterize retaining her as removing the consequences of her actions. I do not see this as being the case. She has to take on all the responsibilities of being a mother now. Mind you, because life is precious and motherhood is precious, she may well have wonderful blessings from God through her being a mother. However, it is still a big change to her life and quite expensive. It is not a light concern.

Further, no one can remove from her the fact that she has misused her virtue. It is quite possible that if she does not already that she will eventually regret that deeply.

If she repented and made a good confession, then she is cleansed by God Himself. Who are we to call into question what the Lord has called clean?

I agree wholeheartedly that we should set an example for children. It would have been better if this had never happened. However, grave sin is something that we all encounter and/or commit in our lives one way or another. So the lesson that a repentant sinner can return to the community to be forgiven, supported, and loved, is invaluable.

If a woman or a teenage girl becomes an unwed mother, then despair and fear of rejection may hinder their coming to the Church - which is exactly where they need to go. So in dealing with these cases, we need to remember that.

 

[Melissa]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure–the more you post, the more I find myself just nodding in agreement w/ you. You make the case very well.

I do not think the school erred in letting her go. However I find myself very discomfited by “Other Eric”'s posts in this thread, as they rather remind me of “I thank God I am not like other men …”

 

[RWMorris]

…Removing consequences is what the abortionists are trying to do; let us not be like them. The natural consequence – as this woman well knew – was that she would lose her position if she became pregnant. She made her choice, and she must now suffer the consequence. We must not confuse forgiveness with the erasure of consequence!

You’ve nailed it. This woman should repent, but still lose her job. We all must pay the consequences of our wrongdoing regardless of whether we repent or not. Forgiveness does not end the consequences of our sin.

 

[LRThunder]

I seem to recall the words of Jesus, " let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Firing this woman tells me that the school has no concept of the gospel message, according to Jesus Christ.

The Church would probably be better served, if this school closed down. They present a poor example of how to be forgiving and compassionate.

Jim

The school and the Church can be forgiving and compassionate, but she must repent and there must be consequences that must be paid.

 

[catharina]

I think that the Church ought to entrust the teaching of the young and impressionable to people she can trust to imitate Christ. I think the audience for this teaching ought to be restricted to those for whom that knowledge will do the most good. This is common sense. Neither of these goals can be accomplished if we populate the school with sinners; especially sinners who flagrantly violate the moral law.

This isn’t about casting stones or rendering judgment nor is this a failure to forgive. It’s about the prudent administration of a Catholic education establishment.

Despite my posts and the following post:

"Today, 12:24 pm  
Benedictus  
Senior Member   Join Date: June 5, 2004
Location: The fattest state
Posts: 1,353  
 
 Re: Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**"Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Eric  
Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments." **

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read here in a long time. This is surprising, even coming from you.

Do you think that the Church and its educational establishments should be empty? Last I checked, we're all sinners. I'm surprised a person who describes himself as a "Lapsed Catholic" like you do has such a strong desire to get rid of all sinners" ~~~

______________________________________________

you feel no need to correct your claim that "Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments."  

Your thinking on this subject is both ridculous and harmful.  
ALL of us are sinners.  Please, do NOT deny the fact.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I would like to ask for a clarification from Other Eric.

When you say “sinners”, Eric, what exactly do you mean? After all, I am a sinner, you are a sinner, we are all sinners on this board. So by “sinners” are you meaning rather “people who live an unrepentant, sinful lifestyle”?

 

[Other_Eric]

Despite my posts and the following post:

. . .

Your thinking on this subject is both ridculous and harmful.
ALL of us are sinners. Please, do NOT deny the fact.

I am not denying that we are all sinners. It’s just that my own failure to, say, genuflect properly before the Tabernacle comes with a certain set of mild consequences. Sinning mortally, as this teacher has done, carries the consequence of losing the privilege of either facilitating or receiving a Catholic education. We all sin, yes, but we do not all sin in a way that destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law.

On an entirely unrelated note, might I suggest that you look to the formatting in your next post? Edifying as the reasoning contained therein is, a confusing layout obscures the best of arguments.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I do not see why having sinned in the past and repented for it makes someone less able to teach young Christians. Certainly, it is better to not have committed the act, but if one does then one can tell others not to do as they did.

When I was younger, on more than one occasion I heard about the regret which a person had for having lost their virginity before marriage. I feel that such testimonies helped me to remain strong in virtue.

Consider also that there have been saints who converted from lives of deep wickedness. They are an inspiration to people who are in the pit of despair. And be assured, despair is one of the most vile and deadly poisons there is for the soul.

Here’s another question: If a person commits a grave sin, does that mean they are never to teach? Or is there a time limit?

 

[Other_Eric]

I do not see why having sinned in the past and repented for it makes someone less able to teach young Christians. Certainly, it is better to not have committed the act, but if one does then one can tell others not to do as they did.

When I was younger, on more than one occasion I heard about the regret which a person had for having lost their virginity before marriage. I feel that such testimonies helped me to remain strong in virtue.

Consider also that there have been saints who converted from lives of deep wickedness. They are an inspiration to people who are in the pit of despair. And be assured, despair is one of the most vile and deadly poisons there is for the soul.

Here’s another question: If a person commits a grave sin, does that mean they are never to teach? Or is there a time limit?

If a person sins mortally, it is better that they never again teach. Having committed a mortal sin even once damages the soul and predisposes that individual to committing the same act again. While this may not render the individual reprobate, and there is still just cause to hope for the individual’s repentance, the likelihood of a second occurrence makes for too great a risk to trust such a person around educational establishments.

It is true that some of the saints may have lifted their own lives up from deplorable wickedness but, since they are dead, they have no further tests upon their virtue for the rest of us to contend with. This is not the case for a sinner we meet on the street. Such a person has already demonstrated their weakness in one area and it would constitute a sin against prudence to allow such a person among those who are still receiving their own formation in the faith.

 

[surfinpure]

I do not see why having sinned in the past and repented for it makes someone less able to teach young Christians. Certainly, it is better to not have committed the act, but if one does then one can tell others not to do as they did.

When I was younger, on more than one occasion I heard about the regret which a person had for having lost their virginity before marriage. I feel that such testimonies helped me to remain strong in virtue.

Consider also that there have been saints who converted from lives of deep wickedness. They are an inspiration to people who are in the pit of despair. And be assured, despair is one of the most vile and deadly poisons there is for the soul.

Here’s another question: If a person commits a grave sin, does that mean they are never to teach? Or is there a time limit?

The thing in question here is the problem of scandal. In this particular situation, the school could not simply recognize that the teacher was repentant and reformed (if, indeed, she was), because there still remained the problem of the image that was to be portrayed to the students. Grade-schoolers are not generally considered ready for such explicit lessons in morality as why nobody ought to have children outside of wedlock. To keep the teacher on would mean word getting around that Miss So-and-So was going to have a baby and she and the baby’s father were not married.

In this event, the school would then be forced to do one of several undesirables:

a) Inform all the parents of the scandal and leave it to them to teach their children why it is not *okay *Miss So-and-So is pregnant and unmarried.

b) Take it upon themselves to educate very young minds about sexual morality (not something I’d want any educator - Catholic or not - getting into with my seven-year-old!)

c) Leave the subject officially unadressed among the students, and let them form their own conclusions about right and wrong amidst gossip and rumors.

Each of these options could potentially result in further serious conditions: angry parents, children withdrawn from the school, children deciding for themselves that there is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage, children learning about sex at much too early an age, rumors and arguments among the existing staff, withdrawal of local contributions to the school, a lawsuit on the part of the teacher over a hostile work environment … the list is virtually endless.

Regarding your question about limitations on teaching based on grave sin, I can’t give you a simple answer, because so much depends on the nature and frequency of the sin (Is it a habit? Was is a one-time thing?), the attitude of the sinner (Are they sorry, or are they smug?), the legal implications (Has the sinner broken the law?), the rules already in place (Was such activity expressly forbidden by the institution?), and most importantly, whether or not children will be scandalized. Let us not forget: that is the bottom line in this case.

 

[surfinpure]

If a person sins mortally, it is better that they never again teach. Having committed a mortal sin even once damages the soul and predisposes that individual to committing the same act again. While this may not render the individual reprobate, and there is still just cause to hope for the individual’s repentance, the likelihood of a second occurrence makes for too great a risk to trust such a person around educational establishments.

It is true that some of the saints may have lifted their own lives up from deplorable wickedness but, since they are dead, they have no further tests upon their virtue for the rest of us to contend with. This is not the case for a sinner we meet on the street. Such a person has already demonstrated their weakness in one area and it would constitute a sin against prudence to allow such a person among those who are still receiving their own formation in the faith.

But this begs the question, how can we tell if our potential educators have or have not ever committed a mortal sin? It would be an atrocity to put such a question on a job application, and the last time I checked, the confessional is secret.

By the standard you dictate, we could never hire St. Augustine or Father Corapi to teach our youth, but we could hire someone of obscure moral history, simply because he says he has never committed a mortal sin.

And I find this ridiculous on the most basic level, as there are very few of us who have never committed a single mortal sin. Have you not? Or would you prefer not to tell anyone?

 

[catharina]

I am not denying that we are all sinners. It’s just that my own failure to, say, genuflect properly before the Tabernacle comes with a certain set of mild consequences. Sinning mortally, as this teacher has done, carries the consequence of losing the privilege of either facilitating or receiving a Catholic education. We all sin, yes, but we do not all sin in a way that destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law.

On an entirely unrelated note, might I suggest that you look to the formatting in your next post? Edifying as the reasoning contained therein is, a confusing layout obscures the best of arguments.

Fascinating that you would choose to judge the severity of a sin of another who might have confessed and received forgiveness. As to my original post to you, that would be Post # 11. Apparently you also judged that post as too confusing? Nice that you’ve answered somewhat. Too bad it took so many questions repeated by various people, huh?

Perhaps you become easily confused.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Surf(name removed by moderator)ure,

First, just a note, I am really just addressing the general concepts rather than this specific situation. I do not know whether she repented, etc.

Anyway, on to scandal and the children. I brought this up earlier and it was not answered: What if a woman teacher was raped and became pregnant from it? That also would be something which would be difficult to explain to children. Or if a woman’s husband left her while she was pregnant. That also would be difficult. Both of those are situations where the woman is the victim, of course. However, they present a similar problem - an apparently single woman teacher having a child.

There are ways in which the issue could be dealt with, including the teacher going on leave until she has had her child and then returning. The students don’t need to know every facet of their teacher’s life. It is not necessary that there should be scandal caused by it. And furthermore, what lesson is being taught to the children if a woman who is repentant is fired anyway? Not a good one.

 

[surfinpure]

Anyway, on to scandal and the children. I brought this up earlier and it was not answered: What if a woman teacher was raped and became pregnant from it? That also would be something which would be difficult to explain to children. Or if a woman’s husband left her while she was pregnant. That also would be difficult. Both of those are situations where the woman is the victim, of course. However, they present a similar problem - an apparently single woman teacher having a child.

I imagine the school board and the diocese would have nothing but sympathy for such a teacher and would desire to work together to find a way so that the children would not be scandalized (indeed, they certainly don’t need to learn about rape or divorce, anymore than they do sexual morality), but the teacher would be able to retain her position. What you suggested in your next paragraph would be a viable alternative:

There are ways in which the issue could be dealt with, including the teacher going on leave until she has had her child and then returning. The students don’t need to know every facet of their teacher’s life. It is not necessary that there should be scandal caused by it.

Fine. So the teacher goes on paid leave and returns after the baby is born, if she so chooses. But certainly you can understand why this case is different. This teacher exhibited poor judgment and sinful behavior to begin with, and while we do not know whether or not she has repented (although her actions post-firing would seem to indicate she has not), she nevertheless was informed of the rules of conduct upon her hiring and ought to have had no expectation of being allowed an exception. The very fact that she committed the sin leads me to question her capacity as a moral leader to Catholic students. Surely the students’ parents would also call her character into question.

And furthermore, what lesson is being taught to the children if a woman who is repentant is fired anyway? Not a good one.

Quite the contrary! The lessons are most important, and ones I would think any Catholic school worth its salt ought to teach anyway:

1. There are multiple and serious consequences for disobeying God’s laws.
2. Even when we confess our sins and receive forgiveness, the natural and temporal consequences do not disappear (a great opportunity to teach the doctrine of Purgatory!).
3. We ought not expect the world to go around making exceptions for us because we feel we are special cases. (In other words, the rules still apply, regardless of how sorry she might be.)

 

[ljprevo]

I seem to recall the words of Jesus, " let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

… snip …

Jim

Yet you forget the part where Jesus said “LEAVE and sin no more”

Basically saying, “Take responsibility for your actions”.

 

[whatevergirl]

I agree with many of the posters–but it’s interesting what the anti abortion group is saying, too. That by firing this young woman, where will she get the funds to support her baby? Is the school punishing the baby, by firing her? Yes, she sinned–but perhaps, a sabbatical would have been better. I think it would have shown compassion, and at the same time–not exposed the girl or school to scandal. I understand the reason behind firing her, but maybe a leave of absence would have been better. When priests are struggling with issues–they will take a leave of absence, why is that not being extended to this young woman? I knew of a priest in a parish back in PA, (there was an article written about him in the Pittsburgh Catholic) where he was struggling with an addiction of some sort, the article did not clarify–and he was noted as taking a leave of absence.

Just think that something along those lines could have been done in this case.

I don’t believe though that the anti abortion group should have inferred that this school was somehow implying through firing the woman, that she should have an abortion. That was a very strange leap for them to make.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Surf(name removed by moderator)ure,
In this particular situation, the woman does not seem terribly repentant. I don’t want to make judgments when I don’t know. But that is why I am only talking about concepts and not this specific situation. The question I am addressing is “What happens if a teacher at a Catholic school becomes pregnant out-of-wedlock?”.

As to the character and moral leadership of the teacher, that would have to be case by case. I am not by any means saying that this is a free ticket for the woman. However, if she wholeheartedly repents her actions and changes her life then that should be taken into account. God changes lives, after all.

Let me give an example. My grandfather was a drunk for a long time. He was emotionally abusive to his family and he displayed a strong contempt for Christianity, often mocking my grandmother when she went to church. Then he became a Christian and his life changed dramatically. Not only did he stop drinking and being abusive, he actually became one of the nicest people you could imagine knowing. He was so kind and so full of God’s love that I have trouble envisioning the idea that the man I knew as my grandfather could ever have been mean to anyone. He was a person who gave witness for Christ in how he lived and treated others everywhere he went. His life was changed and it changed quickly. And it was no temporary change. It lasted the rest of his life.

So, as I say, case by case. My message is let’s see what the woman involved is going to do and act. Even a suspension might be an option to let things settle.

I do not think that she would be avoiding consequences if she is not fired. She has a child now, a responsibility to take care of. As I said earlier, that child can be a blessing for her too. But her life is permanently changed and if she takes on the role of mother, it is not easy.

There is another important message which I think is very, very important for those who find themselves in grave sin or who have walked away from the Church. That message is: “You can come back.”. And I think that, in a society which drowns us in immorality, that message is all the more necessary.

 

[BamaRider]

None of us here would judge this lady, and I’m sure she would be welcome anywhere we go along with her baby. That is not the issue here.

But she’s teaching in a Catholic School, and must have a modicum of creditbiliy. Just too much explaining to do for young kids, and if her pupils are teenagers, sure she will be called on by some of her female students for all kinds of info regarding sexuality.

That needs to come from a teacher not in that situation. I’d find it hard to accept my little girl was taking advice from a unwed mother about sex and relationships. Call me old fashioned. We are mature enough to undestand, and to sort things out, that people make mistakes, we have life experience to call on, but a 14 year old girl or younger does not have that benefit.

What are they to think?

I hate it is that way, this lady might be a very good teacher, just a person who had a judgement lapse, but I don’t see how you allow her to teach in a Catholic School.

Like the ex felon wanting to be a cop. He has paid his debt, but a police dept probably not gonna hire him.